Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physics Letters A

Wave-function collapse and objective randomness

Vittorio Giovannetti, Paolo Grigolini A, Giovacchino Tesi, David Vitali

Published Dec 1, 1996• 6 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/s0375-9601(96)00763-3

Related papers

Wave function collapse versus ob jective randomness

Vittorio Giovannetti, Paolo Grigolini A, Giovacchino Tesi +1 more

•Jan 1, 1996•1 citation

Experimental Protocol for the Detection of Objective Reduction via Bipartite Nanomechanical Resonators

Bruno Luçardo Olivaes

The Diósi-Penrose model of Objective Reduction posits that the quantum superposition of a massive object becomes unstable and collapses due to gravitational self-energy, theoretically emitting random thermal radiation (x-rays) during the collapse. Recent high-sensitivity underground experiments, such as those conducted at Gran Sasso, have failed to detect this random radiation, casting doubt on the Penrose model. In this paper, we propose a new experimental protocol based on the Matrioska de Ouroboros Framework. We argue that objective reduction does not dissipate energy as random thermal noise, but rather as highly directional acoustic phonons (Explosive Acoustic Synchronization) channeled through a specific Modulo-9 topological geometry. We present the design of a Bipartite Nanomechanical Resonator specifically structured to capture and amplify this harmonic acoustic signature, providing a definitive laboratory test for gravitationally induced wave function collapse.

•Jul 30, 2026•0 citations

Wavefunction Collapse and Random Walk

B. Collett, Philip Pearle

arXiv:quant-ph/0208009•Foundations of Physics•Oct 1, 2003•103 citations

New interpretation and thought experiment in quantum mechanics

John joseph Taylor

An interpretation of quantum mechanics involving multiple dimensions is proposed, as well as a thought experiment that in principle if performed correctly could either prove or disprove quantum randomness. All outcomes, of a particle’s wave function manifest but manifest in more than three dimensions, and when the wave function collapses, we see the outcome of the wave function, which only exist in three dimensions. Furthermore, a particle is a much larger object, and exists physically as a wave across more than three dimensions and our best description of this is the Schrodinger wave, because it only describes it in three dimensions. We cannot observe the particle as a wave because it is spread out as an object in which most of it exists in more than three dimensions, but when we observe the part or outcome of a wave function that does exist in three dimensions, which is when collapse occurs it leads to particle like properties, due to not being able to interact with the rest of the wave because it is confined to just interacting on a three dimensional scale because we are observing it in three dimensions. Furthermore we cannot observe the part of the wave function that exists in more than three dimensions, in three dimensions because of the principle that in order to observe an object in it's entirety it needs to be observed in all of it's dimensions. Strange phenomenon in quantum mechanics such as tunneling, can be explained by saying that there is a probability of finding the part of wave function that exists in three dimensions on the other side of the barrier, which has travelled over that barrier classically and the probability of it travelling over the barrier decreases expontentially to the width of the barrier increasing. Whether the quantum world is random, or is determined by non-local hidden variables, can be determined by a simple deductive thought experiment as outlined in this article.

•Feb 14, 2018•0 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Wave-function collapse by measurement and its simulation’ ’’

Mikio Namiki, Saverio Pascazio

We discuss and clarify the concept of dephasing in the many-Hilbert-space approach to the quantum measurement problem. We argue that the phase randomization provoked by a detecting macroscopic device is responsible for the loss of quantum coherence, and that the ``collapse of the wave function'' is to be regarded as a statistical process for the accumulated distribution over many events. In stressing the fundamental differences between our approach and the Copenhagen interpretation, we counter the objections put forward by Johnston [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 48, 2497 (1993)], whose standpoint is essentially similar to the Copenhagen one.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1993•8 citations

On a model of wave-function collapse

M. A. B. Whitaker

Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications•Jul 1, 1998•1 citation
The Diósi-Penrose model of Objective Reduction posits that the quantum superposition of a massive object becomes unstable and collapses due to gravitational self-energy, theoretically emitting random thermal radiation (x-rays) during the collapse. Recent high-sensitivity underground experiments, such as those conducted at Gran Sasso, have failed to detect this random radiation, casting doubt on the Penrose model. In this paper, we propose a new experimental protocol based on the Matrioska de Ouroboros Framework. We argue that objective reduction does not dissipate energy as random thermal noise, but rather as highly directional acoustic phonons (Explosive Acoustic Synchronization) channeled through a specific Modulo-9 topological geometry. We present the design of a Bipartite Nanomechanical Resonator specifically structured to capture and amplify this harmonic acoustic signature, providing a definitive laboratory test for gravitationally induced wave function collapse.
An interpretation of quantum mechanics involving multiple dimensions is proposed, as well as a thought experiment that in principle if performed correctly could either prove or disprove quantum randomness. All outcomes, of a particle’s wave function manifest but manifest in more than three dimensions, and when the wave function collapses, we see the outcome of the wave function, which only exist in three dimensions. Furthermore, a particle is a much larger object, and exists physically as a wave across more than three dimensions and our best description of this is the Schrodinger wave, because it only describes it in three dimensions. We cannot observe the particle as a wave because it is spread out as an object in which most of it exists in more than three dimensions, but when we observe the part or outcome of a wave function that does exist in three dimensions, which is when collapse occurs it leads to particle like properties, due to not being able to interact with the rest of the wave because it is confined to just interacting on a three dimensional scale because we are observing it in three dimensions. Furthermore we cannot observe the part of the wave function that exists in more than three dimensions, in three dimensions because of the principle that in order to observe an object in it's entirety it needs to be observed in all of it's dimensions. Strange phenomenon in quantum mechanics such as tunneling, can be explained by saying that there is a probability of finding the part of wave function that exists in three dimensions on the other side of the barrier, which has travelled over that barrier classically and the probability of it travelling over the barrier decreases expontentially to the width of the barrier increasing. Whether the quantum world is random, or is determined by non-local hidden variables, can be determined by a simple deductive thought experiment as outlined in this article.
We discuss and clarify the concept of dephasing in the many-Hilbert-space approach to the quantum measurement problem. We argue that the phase randomization provoked by a detecting macroscopic device is responsible for the loss of quantum coherence, and that the ``collapse of the wave function'' is to be regarded as a statistical process for the accumulated distribution over many events. In stressing the fundamental differences between our approach and the Copenhagen interpretation, we counter the objections put forward by Johnston [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 48, 2497 (1993)], whose standpoint is essentially similar to the Copenhagen one.